Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano - Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : EU Capitulates to Trump.

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 30, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano

25:12

Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : EU Capitulates to Trump.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, everyone.
	Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
	Today is Wednesday, July 30th, 2025.
	Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on the European Union capitulates to Trump.
	What's behind it?
	But first this.
	We all know how devastating war is.
	Lives lost, communities destroyed.
	But war can also threaten your financial freedom.
	That's where America's heading.
	Our growing involvement in global conflicts.
	It means more spending, more debt, and a weaker dollar.
	That's a direct hit to your wallet.
	So here are three things to keep your eyes on.
	Exploding debt, declining dollar, rising prices of gold and silver.
	These things are already happening.
	Goldman Sachs predicts gold could hit $4,500 an ounce by 2026.
	Why?
	Because central banks and smart investors are buying gold hand over fist.
	They know what's coming and they're hedging against it.
	Currency collapse, inflation, and market volatility.
	Gold has been a trusted store of value for thousands of years and today we need that protection more than ever.
	Call Lear Capital now at 800-511-4620 or visit LearjudsNap.com.
	No one is going to protect your wealth for you.
	You need to do it yourself.
	And now is the time.
	Professor Dr. O, good day to you, my dear friend.
	Thank you very much for joining me today.
	Thanks for accommodating my schedule.
	What has been the general reaction amongst European leaders and European media to the announcement by Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump the other day about this agreement for 15% tariffs for everything the EU wants to sell in the US?
	I don't know of anyone who is rejoicing over that here in Europe.
	On the contrary, the consensus is that this is a tragic moment for Europe, that this will cost them dearly in future investments in manufacturing, which will now be directed to the United States by their local manufacturers here, because it is the only way for them to save their market share in the States under the new regime of U.S. duties.
	So jobs will move to the States, jobs will be lost here, and there is the understanding that the very low growth or negative growth in some countries that has prevailed in Europe for the last two to three years will continue indefinitely when this new system is applied.
	The question is, how do you explain the capitulation?
	I think most everyone understands that von der Leyen was kissing Trump's ring, bending the knee, and that Europe was a suppliant and not an equal partner in negotiations.
	Some of your colleagues on this show have criticized the agreement, arguing, as you did, but in addition, we can't even read it because it's not even been reduced to writing.
	Is that true?
	Have they just agreed on the 15% and nothing has been reduced to writing yet?
	There is nothing more than a handshake as far as we know, but that is sufficient for these purposes because there are a lot of detailed work that has to be done.
	This is not assumed to be the comprehensive and complete agreement.
	There will be some discussions at the margins.
	For example, over the fate of automobiles, will they be at the 25% or indeed a 15%?
	Such as liquor, which was not a subject of agreement during that meeting in Scotland.
	So there are these little bits and pieces along the way.
	But the general understanding is a 15% blanket tariff on all European wares.
	That may be accepted as a solid fact, not as a speculation.
	Back to what you said a few minutes ago, I suppose you could manufacture a Mercedes-Benz automobile in Tennessee, but you can't make French champagne in New Jersey.
	So some of the goods and products unique to Europe cannot be put together here.
	Impossible.
	Yes, that's true.
	So they will forego some of their sales volume in products like champagne or fine wines.
	That is a given.
	And that is part of what some critics say is wrong with the European economy, that it has been very dependent on exports for future growth.
	This was precisely the line of critique in the leading Belgian French-speaking newspaper, The Soire, a couple of days ago.
	They're looking for explanations.
	How is it that we were so weak in these negotiations?
	Of course, that logic doesn't hold up when you consider that China is another part of the world where exports have driven growth.
	And they record 5% GDP annual growth, not 0.1% as the Europeans are now boasting about the first quarter results in 2025.
	So that is an excuse that this paper and people like this paper, who are supporters of the status quo in Europe, are exploring to explain What went wrong.
	But hidden in their discussion, there is a fact which really is evident when you look at it closely, and that is they capitulated to Trump on the trade agreement because they're hoping to keep him in play.
	They're hoping that they can agree with Trump on further support to Ukraine, which is the leading issue of all of the heads of state and prime ministers in Europe.
	I want to get into that in some depth with you, but before we do, one or two more questions about the Trump-von der Leyen agreement.
	What's the next step for the agreement?
	I mean, is this it?
	Or do the French who've condemned it and the Germans who've condemned it have the ability to veto or modify or create carve-outs?
	Well, they do.
	This is not just on the say-so of von der Leyen that a treaty is agreed and is imposed on all the 27 member states.
	It has to go through parliament.
	It requires the ratification.
	And that is going to take a lot of negotiation within Europe.
	Considering that the largest economy in Europe, Germany, headed by a defeatist leader in terms of the tariff war, but a bold leader in terms of the future war with Russia,
	considering his role, how he and his party, the Christian Democrats, are leaders of the European People's Party, which is the most important party in the European Parliament, and he, Merz, has come out two days ago saying that this is, yes, it's a black day for Europe, but, but, but, but this is the best that we could get.
	That assumes that the Germans will vote for the deal.
	The French are going to put up a lot of resistance.
	Let's remember that the major economies are the ones that are most interested in the nature of the agreement with the states because they have the biggest trade flows with the states.
	The smaller countries and smaller economies here are, say, bystanders.
	They are not going to have a decisive say.
	They will follow what they are told to do by the likes of Germany.
	So the French are the single biggest points of resistance to the agreement that von der Leyen has set down.
	Not just the so-called far-right of Marine Le Pen, who instantly came out condemning this, but even the centrist French.
	Bayroux, the prime minister installed by Macron to manage the difficulties he has with his parliament.
	He came out against it as well.
	So the French are going to dig in their heels, and they will certainly demand concessions, though I doubt that they will overturn the agreement that Vanderlayen reached, because so many other countries will follow Germany's lead.
	Is it a simple majority vote in the European Parliament?
	Is it country by country?
	Is it two-thirds?
	How does it work?
	No, as far as my knowledge, it'll be a majority vote.
	All right.
	And you're of the view that notwithstanding this disenchantment for other reasons, which we'll get into presently, this will likely be ratified?
	I think it will be.
	There will be modifications.
	Is she popular or von der Leyen or is she not popular?
	That's an inartful question.
	Is she popular with the folks in the streets?
	Is she popular with elites?
	No, I think it's with elites.
	And popular is not an adjective I would apply here.
	Respected, willing to accept her judgment.
	However, let's remember in the last several weeks, she was under fierce challenge in the parliament.
	And this was covered in the daily news.
	So the broader public, and even among elites, they are aware that she has opposition for the way she has managed the parliament and the European institutions.
	So she doesn't have a free ride anymore.
	Her situation is more tenuous than it was before the challenge to the way she negotiated the COVID vaccine contracts.
	That has put her in some jeopardy.
	And I think the broad public is aware of that, though it has other problems to worry about and isn't very concerned about Madame Fon doulem.
	I mean, let's just suppose, this may be fantastical, but let's just suppose Marie Le Pin becomes the president of France.
	What can she do, if anything, to get out of this?
	Well, let's look first at what von der Leym is doing to get us into this.
	She has appointed the commissioners, all of whom, or a large majority of the important or key positions, she's assigned to the non-entity countries, the Baltics, and other East European countries, which are under German sway.
	She has appointed people who are intellectually inferior in the expectation that she could dominate them, and that has turned out to be true.
	Now, if Marine Le Pen came in, all of these people would be thrown out, and you might have a chance of seeing competent people who represent the 450 million people, a population of the European Union, and not the people like Kallos, who comes from a country with 1 million population, who are drawing Europe around by the nose for the sake of their anti-Russian positions.
	So everything could change in policies, because the policies now are made by those who are under the direct instruction and control of von der Leyen.
	Anyone who replaces her will certainly not enjoy that position of strength to appoint all of the commissioners and to control the whole of European policy the way von der Leyen has in the last several years.
	Okay, got it.
	But if the agreement with Trump is reduced to writing and ratified, and if France rebels, there's nothing much they can do about it, right?
	This is part of the treaty that created the EU.
	They're subject to this, or am I wrong?
	No, you're right.
	But again, there is something here that we have to call out.
	There are parts of this agreement which are utterly unenforceable and which are probably the most damaging to the European economy.
	Not the 15% tariff, but the obligation to buy $650 billion of American energy.
	That is the single biggest factor weighing on the weak European economies, starting with the German economy.
	This, the dependence on liquefied natural gas at world prices, which has been the case ever since the destruction of the North Stream pipelines and the decisions in Parliament to phase out as quickly as possible use of Russian energy supplies,
	that has been the destructive factor in the European economies more than this 15% tariff can possibly be.
	And the obligation to buy this, well, an obligation.
	What kind of obligations do the Chinese have in previous agreements with the United States?
	They never were affected.
	And I doubt that this one ever will be carried out because the people who have signed on to it will not be in office.
	Got it.
	I don't want to put you out on a limb, but which is the greater threat to European economic stability, Russia or the United States?
	At this point, it's the United States.
	To anyone with eyes to see what Mr. Trump has just done, the complete humiliation of Europe, the imposition of tariffs and purchase obligations from the United States, that is destructive of the European economy.
	It is not the act of a friend.
	And in that context, you have to ask, well, why are they going along with it?
	And here you have to look for the small print.
	And as I said, even in the L'Esoir editorial, it was, if you looked closely at the text, you found the answer.
	The answer is to keep up relations with Trump.
	And why do they want to keep up relations with Trump?
	In order to rope him in to continue American support for the Ukrainians in the war with Russia.
	This is the big idea of Maufonde Leyen and her colleagues in the European institutions.
	And it is not an economic concern.
	They don't give a damn about the welfare of the broad populations in the European countries.
	Their concern is their own holding on to power, which is made possible by this war with Russia because it gives them reason.
	Is it a coincidence that while all this is going on, France has announced a recognition of the state of Palestine, and Great Britain, with a little bit of wiggle room, has announced that it is likely to do so by September?
	These are acts of impotence.
	They are giving Mr. Trump the finger in their pocket, which is a very, very common kind of thing.
	In other words, giving him the finger and he can't see them doing it.
	Exactly.
	There's a case in New Jersey where a guy gave a finger to the police.
	Oh, the prosecution went on for years.
	The Supreme Court said it was a protected speech, but it was not in his pocket.
	Well, this is a Russian expression, by the way.
	So you say they do have a sense of humor.
	It is a sign of impotence.
	They cannot say this openly.
	They are defying Trump.
	That's what this recognition of the Palestine state is all about.
	It will change nothing, but it is holding up Trump to general opprobrium and criticism.
	Is this Epstein saga resonating in Europe?
	I mean, I was there for the past week and a half and talking to all kinds of folks, academics, elites, professionals, longtime friends, cab drivers.
	It wasn't what Tulsi Gabbard was revealing.
	It was Epstein, Epstein, Epstein.
	Is it the same in Northern Europe where you are?
	Oh, yes, and that's certainly the Epstein story.
	He's on the front page every day.
	And Gislane Maxwell's picture is in the newspapers.
	But the emphasis, I think, is on one feature, which is also covered in the States.
	The aspect of it that is watched most closely in the European papers is what this says about the MAGA.
	Are they in genuine revolt?
	Is there some loss of strength, political strength, by Trump?
	That is the angle that interests them most, not the details of Peter Fuelia or whatever.
	That side of it is not in the front pages.
	How close to the end of his days in office is President Zelensky?
	I think he's very close, and I think he's being prepared for eviction by the United States.
	And I say that with reference to very specific events that I followed from an angle that I don't see other people covering, strange to say.
	The events that persuade me that Zelensky is on the way out have been the demonstrations in Kiev and other major cities around Ukraine last week.
	And these were as many as 10,000 demonstrators out on the Streets against the new law, newly passed law, that stripped the anti-corruption agencies of their independence.
	The fact everyone speaks about this having happened as if it were a natural thing.
	It's not the least bit natural.
	Everyone is ignoring the authoritarian, dictatorial exercise of power by Zelensky and his immediate followers that have made it impossible to protest without getting your skull broken or getting yourself killed in a prison cell.
	No, there have not been demonstrations, not because the Ukrainian public was satisfied with Zelensky, because nobody dared.
	Now, what changed?
	How is it that these demonstrations could take place?
	How is it that instructions were given to the Ukrainian army not to take part in the demonstrations wearing their uniforms?
	This is incredible.
	I say that there was an outside intervention.
	Someone, some organization imposed on the powers that be in Ukraine, not to dare to fire on the demonstrators.
	Well, there's only two organizations that could do that, I think, CIA and MI6.
	Well, I originally came down on the side of the MI6, but received some very interesting comments from readers who pointed me in the other direction.
	MI6, after all, they have been the providers of security for Zelensky.
	They are his bodyguards.
	It is less than likely that they would be behind acts which are going to bring him down.
	The United States and the CIA is a different story.
	Here, it fits in perfectly with everything that Mr. Trump is doing.
	Not with what he's saying, of course not, but what he's doing.
	De facto, arms are being shipped to much lesser extent and of much lesser use to Ukraine than his words would have indicated.
	The famous patriots are going to take eight months to get there if they get there at all.
	So on the side of Trump, who is by his actions, by his deeds, not by his words, in fact been abandoning Zelensky, this would fit in perfectly to get him out over his violation of rule of law,
	which has been picked up by Western newspapers, even the very anti-Russian Financial Times, day after day speaking about Zelensky having lost credibility because of this authoritarian behavior to neuter the agencies against corruption.
	So the way the public is being prepared for his removal, because the guy is no longer a saint, he's turning out to be a devil.
	And I believe that the Americans are behind us.
	If you're correct and you make a compelling case, Professor, you truly do, then the Americans would choose his successor.
	Yes.
	But of course, this is the thing that people immediately object to.
	Well, it'll be this more or the same.
	Why do they assume that?
	You have to look closely, but there are some people in Kiev who are not neo-Nazis and who are not of the same mindset as the present rulers.
	And I think of Mr. Umerov, the one who is the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the peace talks in Istanbul, as a possible candidate.
	There are others.
	And the Americans certainly would know about it.
	Umerov is very comfortable.
	How about the fellow that's the, I forget the name, Ukrainian ambassador to London?
	Zaluzhny.
	That's also possible.
	There's a lot of talk about it.
	That's why he's in London and not Arkiev, because Zelensky understood that the Americans were winking at Zaluzhny, because Zaluzhny told the truth about the real state of the military efforts, that they were losing badly, and it was time to get him out of the way.
	Now, Mr. Umerov is another candidate.
	The interesting thing about him is his pure civilian background, a man who spent a year in the States living with a family while he was in secondary school.
	And so he's fluented English and knows American situation and who has become very, came wealthy by dint of his wits in high-tech, and wealthy enough to have established fellowships in Stanford University.
	So the man has an interest in the States.
	It would fit in nicely with the kind of leaders that Americans need for.
	The CIA's type of guy.
	Professor Doctor, thank you very much.
	A fascinating, as always, a fascinating conversation.
	I missed you in the past two weeks.
	I'm glad we're all back together.
	Thank you for your time.
	We'll look forward to seeing you next week.
	Very good.
	Thank you.
	And coming up later today, I've missed everybody, including all of you, at 11 o'clock this morning, Colonel Douglas McGregor at 1 this afternoon.
	Professor Glenn Deason at 2 this afternoon.
	Max Blumenthal at 3 this afternoon.
	Phil Giraldi.

▲